Standard Tolerance Grade Value

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose the return shape (µm and mm, plus the originating size step) which is genuinely useful. However it never states that this is a pure read-only lookup, what happens on out-of-range nominal sizes, or whether the value is table-derived vs interpolated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler. The return content leads, the routing condition follows, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, and output units adequately. The only real gap is domain bounds (nominal ≤ 500 mm, valid grade range applicability) that the agent would otherwise have to infer from the schema constraint.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the grade enum is fully enumerated with ISO notation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces "one IT grade at one nominal size" but adds no format semantics (e.g. that nominal is millimetres, the 0–500 mm validity range) beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Return the standard tolerance value for one IT grade at one nominal size") plus the exact return content (µm, mm, size step). It also distinguishes itself from the class-limits sibling by contrasting "the tolerance width itself" with "the limits of a specific class", so an agent can route without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states the triggering situation ("a drawing or a calculation needs the tolerance width itself") and implicitly points at the alternative path (limits of a specific class, i.e. limits_of_size). No explicit exclusions or edge-case guidance (e.g. nominal > 500 mm), so not quite a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.